Take note Prime Minister, MSM, and bloggers of the sewers - RB is a man who has been described as 'tribal Labour'* simply and swiftly rejecting some anti-JK speech as beyond the pale.

If only the Minister of Justice and PM had a similar moral compass.

The National-run activist group the Tax Payers' Union of course immediately pumped out a press release about the arts funding HomeBrew have secured over the years. These same partisan pompous prissy turds remain silent on the use of ministerial staff participating in astroturfing Whaleoil - where speech has actually resulted in genuine death threats against innocent parties.

However, I take a wee bit of offense at your conflation of MLK's black civil rights "voiceless" who were the products of slavery and a system as bad, if not worse, than apartheid; with your own situation.

Clearly, you're not voiceless. Publicly funded monies have been used to help support your band (IMHO that's great, artistic expression is to be admired and an expressive society with strong arts is a tolerant and balanced society). I appreciate that maybe your terms of reference for "voiceless" are that you may feel frustrated as if you're yelling into a hurricane to be heard and trying to get a message out there. But that's utterly *not* the same as MLK's "voiceless". I invite you to live in the Deep South of the US (still) if you wish to see it. It is not nice.

If you're the Tom of the song, please - have a think about if that were your daughter, sister or Mum someone else was talking about in such a public way. What you did wasn't protest speech... it was inciting violence. By all means, protest away but try to be better than that.

I listened to the song and thought they had the beginnings of something really great… but after the end of the first verse, then the chorus about what he was going to do to that young girl I found myself really angry and sickened and I shut it off.

That young girl did nothing to deserve this, she never stood for office or made herself part of the NZ political conversation/landscape. I appreciate an argument could be made that as an art student in Paris she released some fairly risqué pictures a while back… but that was in the context of her artistic work there (the irony of “artistic license versus this song is not lost on me). Despite that, her pictures etc are not an invitation to rape culture. And, if we are all honest with ourselves, that what these lyrics not only represent, but illustrate beautifully… a callous disregard for a young woman as a sex object for someone else to “make a point” – in this case the really weak “oh, I was looking for attention to “get out the vote”. Sorry the lyricist has had an epic fail there.

That young girl did nothing to deserve this, she never stood for office or made herself part of the NZ political conversation/landscape.

Why, would it be any better or acceptable if they had stood for office or been part of the political landscape? The tendency to demonise your political opponents is supremely silly and indulged in way too much by people of all political hues.

But I guess I am a bit mixed on this. Unlike a lot of people I think this is just all the noise of democracy. I don’t like a conversation of elites. On the other hand, if you’ve got dirty politics and libels proliferating like diddymo then you run the risk that you’ll choke off the oxygen of legitimacy necessary to the survival of democracy.

On the balance, a bunch of dis-empowered hip-hoppers singing a fantasy song about knocking off the PM is pretty small beer to a well-connected at the highest level right wing online Brownshirt like Cameron Slater, with his refusal to accept the legitimacy of the law and belief he can behave in a totally lawless and thuggish way with the approval of the minister of justice and the Prime Minister. I know which one I think constitutes the real threat to democracy.

What about the cover of the rugby magazine with John Key pretending to be an All Black? It is in every book and magazine shop and dairy across NZ. Surely that is an election advertisement. Much more so than a song or a former MP’s dresses.

A few election cycles ago, Helen Clarke turned up on the cover of more or less every NZ women's magazine.

Those were standard articles about a politician and it wasn't during an election campaign. This one is a picture of a politician masquerading as an All Black, wearing their uniform, and flanked by real All Blacks. A use and abuse of 'iconic' imagery on many levels, designed to be displayed prominently on shop shelves throughout NZ during an election campaign. No authorisation statement either.

Those were standard articles about a politician and it wasn’t during an election campaign.

Those mags were also central to the media strategy that introduced Key to New Zealanders. Not their fault at all: they were presented with "at home with" stories, their stock in trade, that Clark was notoriously squeamish about. They're actually quite even-handed when it comes to political figures.

This one is a picture of a politician masquerading as an All Black, wearing their uniform, and flanked by real All Blacks.

Via Photoshop. And headed "Leader of the Pack". In an election period.

This one is a picture of a politician masquerading as an All Black, wearing their uniform, and flanked by real All Blacks.

And Key reckoned he got a text message from McCaw that he read out at the National party campaign launch. Tthe rugby union needs to yank McCaws chain and tell him the STFU. As it is, rugby is increasingly a game where rich white folks watch brown people entertain them. Aligning the captain of the All Blacks with John Key is a dumb idea. I really, really hope Ritchie McCaw doesn’t force me and others to pelt him with good, red socialist tomatoes next Super XV game he is in at Eden park.

Did anyone ask Rugby News why they thought it was a good idea, which is what I seem to recall was Key's explanation? I refuse to pick the thing up to see what their explanation was, because I'm not their audience (not an atheist, an indifferent), so it would be clickbait, but still, it did seem rather an off the wall decision.

As for the alleged McCaw message, and the one that Matthew Beveridge quoted from Dan Carter last week - it's yet another reinforcement of the polarisation of this government. In the blue corner, rugby players, golf, beer. But last year's bigger international NZ success stories were Lorde and Eleanor Catton, and Catton's stood up for the Greens and Lorde told the Young Nats they weren't her cup of tea, if what I read in the SST was correct.

And on the subject of McCaw, is John Key going to get another PM's 'election free hour' this year to talk about his cat and TV programming and interview blokes who like him?

Apparently they had to have the PM on the cover because they were so lucky to get permission to do it, or something like that. On the choice of cover:

The front cover came about through a synergy of ideas. As the issue was about the Rugby Championships, it HAD to have the All Blacks on it. Another article (by Craig Dowd) highlighted the importance of the forwards in the Championship. Hence, the choice of all forwards in the cover picture. We also wanted the PM on the cover issue as having him in the magazine – regardless of his/you/our politics – was something of a coup.

The poses struck were showing the players in a ‘V’ shape – this was to symbolise ‘Victory’. Having the PM at the front of the V (in his supporters jersey) was symbolising all NZ rugby fans – from the lowest/youngest right up to the PM – were right behind our All Blacks, as they went for a world record of wins and in to the (very hard) Rugby Championships.

(Should probably clarify that last post's line about the timing was a paraphrase, not a direct quote btw) The other thing that made me smile was the admiration for the way the PM was such a staunch supporter, always so happy to be seen to be supporting the team. Yes,' um, okay' sums it up nicely.